The important feature of the invention, is a box, with an open top. From this box, the air is to be exhausted, whilst the wire web, on which the fluid paper pulp is spread, passes over it for the purpose of causing the pressure of air above, to force the water from the pulp through the wire web into the exhausted box below, and thereby leave the new-formed sheet of paper in a nearly dry state.

The patentee acknowledged, in his specification, that an exhausted box, having a lid or cover, with perforations for the discharge of the water, had been used before; but his invention was an open box; and, considering that paper of large size might be required to be made in the machine, and that the opening in the top of the box might thereby be increased, so as to render necessary some further support to the wire web, beside the mere edges of the box,-observed, towards the close of his specification, "that proper arrangements may be made to support the wire web, if thought necessary."

The defendant adapted to his machine a box, like that described by the plaintiff, but placed bars across the top of it, which he argued constituted a lid or cover, and therefore, his box was not an open one, as claimed by the plaintiff, and hence no infringement; insisting further, that the words of the specification, "proper arrangements may be made to support the wire web, if thought necessary," were vague, and not explanatory as to whether such support were necessary or not, and how those supports were to be made.

Much discussion took place, as to whether these bars constituted a lid or not. Other arguments were also raised, respecting a cylindrical vacuum box, used by Fourdrinier, and a vacuum apparatus, used by Evans, neither of which appear to have effected the question.

The counsel for the defendant then stated, that it was his intention to bring evidence to prove that the invention, specified by the plaintiff, had been publicly used in England before the date of the Scotch patent.

The counsel for the plaintiff objected to the admission of any

such evidence, on the ground that the previous use of the invention in England was not a ground for invalidating the plaintiff's patent in Scotland. The counsel for the defendant did, however, insist that such evidence was competent and admissible, and ought to be received, as proving a ground of invalidity of the patent.

At this stage of the proceedings, Lord Mackenzie adjourned the Court until the following day.

66

The Court met again, according to adjournment, and his Lordship repelled the objection of the plaintiff's counsel, and found, that the said evidence was admissible, as proving a ground of the invalidity of the patent. On which the counsel for the plaintiff excepted to the opinion of his Lordship, and tendered the exception accordingly, in the form of the following minute :-" In respect of the opinion of the Judge, that the use and practice averred, as to England, is competent in evidence to establish the first use for the defendants, the plaintiff admits that the verdict must, in point of fact, go on that first issue for the defendants, subject to exception to the opinion of the Judge: the plaintiff admitting, that if the above point of law is decided against him, the defendants are entitled to judgment in the cause."

15th May, 1841.

(Signed)

JOHN HOPE.

An appeal to the whole bench of Judges will be taken upon this question; and if the judgment be there confirmed, it is presumed that a further appeal will be brought before the House of Lords.

We understand that it is the opinion of all the Crown Lawyers in Scotland, and we believe in England also, that, in a patent right, Scotland is a foreign country, in respect of England and Ireland, just as much so as Hanover; which, till recently, belonged to the same Crown,—and on that understanding we have always proceeded; the principle being, that a prior usage of an invention in Scotland, did not invalidate the English patent right, and vice versa.

The precedent which directed this extraordinary opinion of

the Judge, was found in an old decision of the Scotch Courts, not much known, and passed at a time when very few patents were granted in Scotland. This decision was discovered by the defendant's counsel, and will probably still rule the case when it comes before the whole bench. The Judges, however much they may doubt the expediency of the decision, may consider that they are tied down by it. The most probable chance of a reversal will be by the English Chancellor; and it may be twelve months or more before it will be brought to a final decision.

The opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock has, we are informed, been taken upon this question, and his decided view of the case is, that Scotland and England are foreign countries to each other in respect of patent rights for inventions.

We have no hesitation in stating, as our conviction, that the antiquated decision brought forward in this case, must be overruled, unless ONE PATENT be made to extend over the WHOLE

EMPIRE.

Since England, Scotland, and Ireland, have become one United Kingdom, it appears absurd to grant three distinct patents for the several countries; and, as a rule prevails in Scotland of allowing only four months, from the date of the grant, for the inrolment of the specification, whilst six months are allowed in England,—it is, in most cases, absolutely necessary to defer the application for a Scotch patent until some months after the English patent has been granted; consequently, in all such cases, (supposing the above antiquated precedent to be the acknowledged law,) most of the patents granted in Scotland, would be invalid, from the invention having been previously known in England by the grant of the patent here, on a prior date.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AT WESTMINSTER.

JUNE, 1841.

Before Chief Justice Sir N. Tindal and a Special Jury.
GIBSON AND ANOTHER v. Brand.

This was an action for the alleged infringement of a patent right, granted to the plaintiffs, 19th November, 1836, (for specification of which see our present Vol., page 387,) in which Sir F. POLLOCK, Mr. SERGEANT BOMPAS, Mr. M. H. HILL, Mr. HOGGINS, and Mr. GALE, appeared for the plaintiffs; and Sir W. FOLLETT, Mr. KELLY, Mr. SERGEANT CHANNELL, and Mr. HENDERSON, for the defendant.

The trial of the cause commenced on Saturday, and was continued on Monday and Tuesday, until eight o'clock in the evening, when the Jury retired to consider their verdict.

The substantial questions at issue may be stated in a very few words. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Gibson and Campbell, obtained a patent in 1836, "for a new and improved process of manufacturing silk, and silk in combination with other fibrous substances." The feature of improvement appeared to be, that of spinning silk, in the long fibre, from waste silk; for which purpose they employed the old flax-spinning machinery, with certain alleged improvements, consisting chiefly in the use of brass bosses or rollers, in the old throstle frame; and in reducing the distance between the drawing rollers and the top points of the spindles; also in immersing the pressing rollers partially in water,—the water being thereby brought to act upon the silk at the bite of the rollers, just where the drawing ceased and the spinning began.

The length of the ratch, rack, or reach, which is the extension of the thread to be spun from the drawing rollers to the points of the spindles, was to be less than usual, perhaps from 11 to 15 inches.

The plaintiffs admitted that the several parts of the machine were not new, individually; but they laid claim to novelty in their combination and use; and witnesses were called on their behalf, who stated that they had never heard of the spinning of silk, in the long fibre, from waste silk, until the plaintiffs invented and obtained their patent.

On behalf of the defendant, a large number of witnesses, of great respectability, were examined, who deposed, that silk was spun in the long fibre, from silk waste, long before the date of the plaintiffs' patent; and that their machine was neither new in its parts nor in their combination.

Among other witnesses, Mr. Pattison stated that, as far back as the year 1816, the same kind of fabric as that manufactured by the plaintiffs, was produced at his mills, at Congleton, and was sold by him to different houses in Coventry, Nottingham, London, and other places. The silk, thus manufactured, was spun from the flax-spinning machine then in use, differing, as was stated, in no respect from the model of the plaintiffs' machine, except in the distance between the rollers and the spindles, which frequently varied even in ordinary throstle frames.

Other witnesses spoke to the use of brass bosses or rollers, in the throstle frame, many years ago; and the application of water at the "nip," was sworn to have been known for the last forty years, and to have been in constant use ever since.

The Chief Justice summed up the evidence, and the Jury retired, for two hours, to consider their verdict; and at 10 o'clock at night they returned into Court, and stated their opinion, that the invention, as described in the plaintiffs' specification, was not new, but that the process was improved,-amounting to a verdict for the defendant.